NetLogo: break out of nested foreach loop
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
I'm trying to break out of a nested foreach loop using 2 lists of sorted turtles.
But instead of just leaving the inner loop, netlogo breaks out of the whole procedure.
I have a code like the one below (this one is made up, but has exactly the same structure):
to do-something
let xturtles sort-by [ [a b] -> [birthday] of a > [birthday] of b ] turtles
;; construct an ordered set
foreach xturtles [ the-xturtle ->
ask the-xturtle [
let xage birthday
let yturtles sort-by [ [a b] -> [birthday] of a > [birthday] of b ] turtles with [birthday < xage]
;; construct a second ordered set
foreach yturtles [ the-yturtle ->
let breakout-condition? false
ask the-yturtle [
if (hidden? ) [
set breakout-condition? true
]
]
if breakout-condition? [ stop ]
]
]
]
end
However, when the stop condition is reached, netlogo breaks out of the whole procedure, instead of continuing with the outer loop (the xturtles loop)?
Is that the expected behavior? If so, what is a good practice in this case?
Thanks!
Felix
foreach netlogo
asked Nov 16 '18 at 12:45
Felix HelixFelix Helix
355
add a comment |
I'm trying to break out of a nested foreach loop using 2 lists of sorted turtles.
But instead of just leaving the inner loop, netlogo breaks out of the whole procedure.
I have a code like the one below (this one is made up, but has exactly the same structure):
to do-something
let xturtles sort-by [ [a b] -> [birthday] of a > [birthday] of b ] turtles
;; construct an ordered set
foreach xturtles [ the-xturtle ->
ask the-xturtle [
let xage birthday
let yturtles sort-by [ [a b] -> [birthday] of a > [birthday] of b ] turtles with [birthday < xage]
;; construct a second ordered set
foreach yturtles [ the-yturtle ->
let breakout-condition? false
ask the-yturtle [
if (hidden? ) [
set breakout-condition? true
]
]
if breakout-condition? [ stop ]
]
]
]
end
However, when the stop condition is reached, netlogo breaks out of the whole procedure, instead of continuing with the outer loop (the xturtles loop)?
Is that the expected behavior? If so, what is a good practice in this case?
Thanks!
Felix
foreach netlogo
asked Nov 16 '18 at 12:45
Felix HelixFelix Helix
355
add a comment |
I'm trying to break out of a nested foreach loop using 2 lists of sorted turtles.
But instead of just leaving the inner loop, netlogo breaks out of the whole procedure.
I have a code like the one below (this one is made up, but has exactly the same structure):
to do-something
let xturtles sort-by [ [a b] -> [birthday] of a > [birthday] of b ] turtles
;; construct an ordered set
foreach xturtles [ the-xturtle ->
ask the-xturtle [
let xage birthday
let yturtles sort-by [ [a b] -> [birthday] of a > [birthday] of b ] turtles with [birthday < xage]
;; construct a second ordered set
foreach yturtles [ the-yturtle ->
let breakout-condition? false
ask the-yturtle [
if (hidden? ) [
set breakout-condition? true
]
]
if breakout-condition? [ stop ]
]
]
]
end
However, when the stop condition is reached, netlogo breaks out of the whole procedure, instead of continuing with the outer loop (the xturtles loop)?
Is that the expected behavior? If so, what is a good practice in this case?
Thanks!
Felix
foreach netlogo
asked Nov 16 '18 at 12:45
Felix HelixFelix Helix
355
I'm trying to break out of a nested foreach loop using 2 lists of sorted turtles.
But instead of just leaving the inner loop, netlogo breaks out of the whole procedure.
I have a code like the one below (this one is made up, but has exactly the same structure):
to do-something
let xturtles sort-by [ [a b] -> [birthday] of a > [birthday] of b ] turtles
;; construct an ordered set
foreach xturtles [ the-xturtle ->
ask the-xturtle [
let xage birthday
let yturtles sort-by [ [a b] -> [birthday] of a > [birthday] of b ] turtles with [birthday < xage]
;; construct a second ordered set
foreach yturtles [ the-yturtle ->
let breakout-condition? false
ask the-yturtle [
if (hidden? ) [
set breakout-condition? true
]
]
if breakout-condition? [ stop ]
]
]
]
end
However, when the stop condition is reached, netlogo breaks out of the whole procedure, instead of continuing with the outer loop (the xturtles loop)?
Is that the expected behavior? If so, what is a good practice in this case?
Thanks!
Felix
foreach netlogo
foreach netlogo
asked Nov 16 '18 at 12:45
Felix HelixFelix Helix
355
asked Nov 16 '18 at 12:45
Felix HelixFelix Helix
355
asked Nov 16 '18 at 12:45
Felix HelixFelix Helix
355
asked Nov 16 '18 at 12:45
Felix HelixFelix Helix
355
asked Nov 16 '18 at 12:45
Felix HelixFelix Helix
355
355
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
It looks even nesting the stop within an extra ask procedure in the same procedure doesn't help. However, if you need a quick fix I think you can replace the second foreach loop with a standalone procedure that contains the stop as a workaround. For example, this procedure follows a similar format to yours and the same problem comes up- as soon as stop is called the broader foreach is exited.
to nest-foreach-example
ca
crt 1
let xs [ 1 2 3 4 ]
let ys [ 1 2 3 4 ]
foreach xs [
x ->
foreach ys [
y ->
ask turtles [
if y > x [
stop
]
]
print word x y
]
]
end
This prints out 11.
However, if you make a custom procedure to take the place of your "y" foreach loop, it works (with or without the ask turtles):
to nest-foreach-example-turtles
ca
crt 1
let xs [ 1 2 3 4 ]
let ys [ 1 2 3 4 ]
foreach xs [
x ->
for-y x ys
]
end
to for-y [ x_ ys ]
foreach ys [
y ->
ask turtles [
if y > x_ [
stop
]
]
print word x_ y
]
end
Outputs:
11
21
22
31
32
33
41
42
43
44
answered Nov 16 '18 at 18:50
Luke CLuke C
7,0371815
Thanks Luke! Yes, that's an option. Maybe I can come up with a general reporter to be used whenever this kind of computation is used. Another option I found is to use a stop flag and inside the inner loop to check if it's body should be executed. But this adds an extra variable and the loop is running anyway.
– Felix Helix
Nov 19 '18 at 10:23
@FelixHelix - You bet! You may be able to figure this out, but I'm not sure how to go more general than thefor-yexample already is, as it accepts the current item being iterated and the new list you want to pass to it. It should be "nestable" as is, too. You're right about the stop flag, but honestly if you don't have a very large model I bet you're probably okay to let the loop run. If you have a larger one, something like thefor-ywill save some computation time.
– Luke C
Nov 20 '18 at 21:36
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53338208%2fnetlogo-break-out-of-nested-foreach-loop%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It looks even nesting the stop within an extra ask procedure in the same procedure doesn't help. However, if you need a quick fix I think you can replace the second foreach loop with a standalone procedure that contains the stop as a workaround. For example, this procedure follows a similar format to yours and the same problem comes up- as soon as stop is called the broader foreach is exited.
to nest-foreach-example
ca
crt 1
let xs [ 1 2 3 4 ]
let ys [ 1 2 3 4 ]
foreach xs [
x ->
foreach ys [
y ->
ask turtles [
if y > x [
stop
]
]
print word x y
]
]
end
This prints out 11.
However, if you make a custom procedure to take the place of your "y" foreach loop, it works (with or without the ask turtles):
to nest-foreach-example-turtles
ca
crt 1
let xs [ 1 2 3 4 ]
let ys [ 1 2 3 4 ]
foreach xs [
x ->
for-y x ys
]
end
to for-y [ x_ ys ]
foreach ys [
y ->
ask turtles [
if y > x_ [
stop
]
]
print word x_ y
]
end
Outputs:
11
21
22
31
32
33
41
42
43
44
answered Nov 16 '18 at 18:50
Luke CLuke C
7,0371815
Thanks Luke! Yes, that's an option. Maybe I can come up with a general reporter to be used whenever this kind of computation is used. Another option I found is to use a stop flag and inside the inner loop to check if it's body should be executed. But this adds an extra variable and the loop is running anyway.
– Felix Helix
Nov 19 '18 at 10:23
@FelixHelix - You bet! You may be able to figure this out, but I'm not sure how to go more general than thefor-yexample already is, as it accepts the current item being iterated and the new list you want to pass to it. It should be "nestable" as is, too. You're right about the stop flag, but honestly if you don't have a very large model I bet you're probably okay to let the loop run. If you have a larger one, something like thefor-ywill save some computation time.
– Luke C
Nov 20 '18 at 21:36
add a comment |
It looks even nesting the stop within an extra ask procedure in the same procedure doesn't help. However, if you need a quick fix I think you can replace the second foreach loop with a standalone procedure that contains the stop as a workaround. For example, this procedure follows a similar format to yours and the same problem comes up- as soon as stop is called the broader foreach is exited.
to nest-foreach-example
ca
crt 1
let xs [ 1 2 3 4 ]
let ys [ 1 2 3 4 ]
foreach xs [
x ->
foreach ys [
y ->
ask turtles [
if y > x [
stop
]
]
print word x y
]
]
end
This prints out 11.
However, if you make a custom procedure to take the place of your "y" foreach loop, it works (with or without the ask turtles):
to nest-foreach-example-turtles
ca
crt 1
let xs [ 1 2 3 4 ]
let ys [ 1 2 3 4 ]
foreach xs [
x ->
for-y x ys
]
end
to for-y [ x_ ys ]
foreach ys [
y ->
ask turtles [
if y > x_ [
stop
]
]
print word x_ y
]
end
Outputs:
11
21
22
31
32
33
41
42
43
44
answered Nov 16 '18 at 18:50
Luke CLuke C
7,0371815
Thanks Luke! Yes, that's an option. Maybe I can come up with a general reporter to be used whenever this kind of computation is used. Another option I found is to use a stop flag and inside the inner loop to check if it's body should be executed. But this adds an extra variable and the loop is running anyway.
– Felix Helix
Nov 19 '18 at 10:23
@FelixHelix - You bet! You may be able to figure this out, but I'm not sure how to go more general than thefor-yexample already is, as it accepts the current item being iterated and the new list you want to pass to it. It should be "nestable" as is, too. You're right about the stop flag, but honestly if you don't have a very large model I bet you're probably okay to let the loop run. If you have a larger one, something like thefor-ywill save some computation time.
– Luke C
Nov 20 '18 at 21:36
add a comment |
It looks even nesting the stop within an extra ask procedure in the same procedure doesn't help. However, if you need a quick fix I think you can replace the second foreach loop with a standalone procedure that contains the stop as a workaround. For example, this procedure follows a similar format to yours and the same problem comes up- as soon as stop is called the broader foreach is exited.
to nest-foreach-example
ca
crt 1
let xs [ 1 2 3 4 ]
let ys [ 1 2 3 4 ]
foreach xs [
x ->
foreach ys [
y ->
ask turtles [
if y > x [
stop
]
]
print word x y
]
]
end
This prints out 11.
However, if you make a custom procedure to take the place of your "y" foreach loop, it works (with or without the ask turtles):
to nest-foreach-example-turtles
ca
crt 1
let xs [ 1 2 3 4 ]
let ys [ 1 2 3 4 ]
foreach xs [
x ->
for-y x ys
]
end
to for-y [ x_ ys ]
foreach ys [
y ->
ask turtles [
if y > x_ [
stop
]
]
print word x_ y
]
end
Outputs:
11
21
22
31
32
33
41
42
43
44
answered Nov 16 '18 at 18:50
Luke CLuke C
7,0371815
It looks even nesting the stop within an extra ask procedure in the same procedure doesn't help. However, if you need a quick fix I think you can replace the second foreach loop with a standalone procedure that contains the stop as a workaround. For example, this procedure follows a similar format to yours and the same problem comes up- as soon as stop is called the broader foreach is exited.
to nest-foreach-example
ca
crt 1
let xs [ 1 2 3 4 ]
let ys [ 1 2 3 4 ]
foreach xs [
x ->
foreach ys [
y ->
ask turtles [
if y > x [
stop
]
]
print word x y
]
]
end
This prints out 11.
However, if you make a custom procedure to take the place of your "y" foreach loop, it works (with or without the ask turtles):
to nest-foreach-example-turtles
ca
crt 1
let xs [ 1 2 3 4 ]
let ys [ 1 2 3 4 ]
foreach xs [
x ->
for-y x ys
]
end
to for-y [ x_ ys ]
foreach ys [
y ->
ask turtles [
if y > x_ [
stop
]
]
print word x_ y
]
end
Outputs:
11
21
22
31
32
33
41
42
43
44
answered Nov 16 '18 at 18:50
Luke CLuke C
7,0371815
answered Nov 16 '18 at 18:50
Luke CLuke C
7,0371815
answered Nov 16 '18 at 18:50
Luke CLuke C
7,0371815
answered Nov 16 '18 at 18:50
Luke CLuke C
7,0371815
7,0371815
Thanks Luke! Yes, that's an option. Maybe I can come up with a general reporter to be used whenever this kind of computation is used. Another option I found is to use a stop flag and inside the inner loop to check if it's body should be executed. But this adds an extra variable and the loop is running anyway.
– Felix Helix
Nov 19 '18 at 10:23
@FelixHelix - You bet! You may be able to figure this out, but I'm not sure how to go more general than thefor-yexample already is, as it accepts the current item being iterated and the new list you want to pass to it. It should be "nestable" as is, too. You're right about the stop flag, but honestly if you don't have a very large model I bet you're probably okay to let the loop run. If you have a larger one, something like thefor-ywill save some computation time.
– Luke C
Nov 20 '18 at 21:36
add a comment |
Thanks Luke! Yes, that's an option. Maybe I can come up with a general reporter to be used whenever this kind of computation is used. Another option I found is to use a stop flag and inside the inner loop to check if it's body should be executed. But this adds an extra variable and the loop is running anyway.
– Felix Helix
Nov 19 '18 at 10:23
@FelixHelix - You bet! You may be able to figure this out, but I'm not sure how to go more general than thefor-yexample already is, as it accepts the current item being iterated and the new list you want to pass to it. It should be "nestable" as is, too. You're right about the stop flag, but honestly if you don't have a very large model I bet you're probably okay to let the loop run. If you have a larger one, something like thefor-ywill save some computation time.
– Luke C
Nov 20 '18 at 21:36
Thanks Luke! Yes, that's an option. Maybe I can come up with a general reporter to be used whenever this kind of computation is used. Another option I found is to use a stop flag and inside the inner loop to check if it's body should be executed. But this adds an extra variable and the loop is running anyway.
– Felix Helix
Nov 19 '18 at 10:23
Thanks Luke! Yes, that's an option. Maybe I can come up with a general reporter to be used whenever this kind of computation is used. Another option I found is to use a stop flag and inside the inner loop to check if it's body should be executed. But this adds an extra variable and the loop is running anyway.
– Felix Helix
Nov 19 '18 at 10:23
@FelixHelix - You bet! You may be able to figure this out, but I'm not sure how to go more general than the
for-y example already is, as it accepts the current item being iterated and the new list you want to pass to it. It should be "nestable" as is, too. You're right about the stop flag, but honestly if you don't have a very large model I bet you're probably okay to let the loop run. If you have a larger one, something like the for-y will save some computation time.– Luke C
Nov 20 '18 at 21:36
@FelixHelix - You bet! You may be able to figure this out, but I'm not sure how to go more general than the
for-y example already is, as it accepts the current item being iterated and the new list you want to pass to it. It should be "nestable" as is, too. You're right about the stop flag, but honestly if you don't have a very large model I bet you're probably okay to let the loop run. If you have a larger one, something like the for-y will save some computation time.– Luke C
Nov 20 '18 at 21:36
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53338208%2fnetlogo-break-out-of-nested-foreach-loop%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
